the paper advertised let's see, it is on the mainly on page 3 and down here. on the second paragraph, and san francisco chronicle and examiner, the western edition, the san francisco bay view and the world journal and the small business exchange. >> so when you advertise these and send these papers do you pay to take out an ad or do you have a contract? how does that relationship work? >> the handle. >> good morning, for finance and administration, we do actually contact and various newspapers or agencies that pertain to the type of work, we

don't have actually a contract with each and every single one some of them we do and some of them we don't, just to get the best price, and which ever that we have coming out for the year. >> okay. >> and so you have just, you have an established budget, and just trying to understand it a little bit better to pay for advertisement? >> yes. >> each procurement that we have will be advertised with the san francisco chronicle and any small type or neighborhood paper as well, depending on where the project falls into, and which district that it falls into, >> maybe we can come back. >> and so i heard the crol cal and the examiner. >> yes, the western edition and the bay view and was there as span i recollect speaking. >> world journal and small business exchange. >> it does not sound like there is a newspaper that services it. >> and sometimes we are not able to advertise with that business they do to the advertising, and it is due, which sometimes the price...

>> sometimes the cycles have a once a quarter cycle and ones we have all of that information ready for them they may not be able to advertise. >> we offered to contact them and sometimes not even received a phone call back. >> okay. >> but we tried to reach out. >> thank you. >> if you want to know more about what other else, or where else we advertised it to other agencies and associations we advertise, we also make sure that wtf and conto and other professionals societies that are representing minorities are aware, like the hispanic and the engineers and all of those engineering firms, and these associations who are notified of our event. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your presentation today. >> and see if there is any discussion from the colleagues. on this item. >> seeing none, we are going to go ahead and open it up for public comment. please come up.

>> (inaudible) and japan and (inaudible) and so (inaudible) yeah (inaudible) progress for the work (inaudible) for the society (inaudible) >> great, thank you. >> just a reminder no campaigning or electioning allowed inside of city hall. >> could we go ahead madam clerk and go ahead and vote? >> okay. >> public comment is closed. >> item number 6?

>> yes. >> commissioner chiu? >> aye. >> cohen? >> aye. >> farrell? >> aye. >> tang? >> aye. >> commissioner weiner? >> aye. >> and it passes. >> the ayes. >> this item passes, and next up on the agenda is item 7, introduction of new items. >> item 7 is introduction of new items information item. and colleagues are there any questions, staff or issues that you want to introduce, and okay, anything none at this time, this item is closed and open it up for the public comment on item 7. >> item 8 is public comment. >> seeing those and no general public comment, close. and madam clerk, could you call 9. >> adjournment. >> thank you very much. this meeting is adjourned.

>> good afternoon, everyone mcdonald this is the september 16, 2014, meeting of the transportation authority plans & programs committee of the san francisco transportation authority plans & programs committee and let's see before i start, i should thank sfgovtv charles and jennifer lowe foretell vision zero. >> roll call. >> supervisor breed absent

sxhemz absent supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor yee we have quorum. >> can we have the first or second item. >> item 2 the citizens advisory committee this is an informational item. >> we have mr. bryan larkin from the cac. >> good morning policeman's and members we is your item 6, 7, 8 and 9 we passed some of them unanimously some of them not the first item 6 was a transit prefer rental he item we had a think a oppose and one was me i was confused why we needed an

item dedicated to the dr it so if you have questions the same type i had they can clarify them. >> number 7 was a prop k request. >> mr. larkin what item. >> your number of your item 7, 8 prop k items we had public comment from restraining order i can't think he astonished us the bayer caltrain it would difficult to make a truly enter mod ail station i'll pass that on his behalf our items 8 and 9 we considered as one we unanimously passed our number 8

unanimously without the delegation of authority had a right part of the matter the bulk on your number 9 about letting staff present or not present things to us and to you and to us again, we had a lot of discussion our chair glen davis ultimately voted against it maybe we were con ceded authority delegated by the voters through prop k they wanted more citizens involvement was passed and maybe we were con ceded that i voted for it as i heard the mta staffers say the need for them to report to the committee to the various it committees on some of the issues were time consuming and would

cost a month or two during the summer when they sunshine had small changes in appropriations they needed and couldn't make the change i worked for the transit agency for several years and i share their pain in that but i think that is the bulk of that we ultimately pass that item 9, 7 to 3 i'll leave that for your further consideration. >> thank you for the details mr. larkin any questions thank you so we'll open this up for public comment any public comment on that item? mr. clerk. >> item 3 the approval of the minutes of the july 13th meeting an action item. >> i see no questions from

colleagues anyone from the public wish to speak on this item seeing none, public comment is closed. oh, we have to take a roll call >> on 3 supervisor breed sxhoemsz e councilwoman's absent supervisor yee supervisor mar items passes. >> thank you mr. clerk, call the next item. >> item 4 recommendation of one member to the citizens advisory committee this is an action item. >> with you have courtney from the pa. >> so the transportation authority has an 11 member citizens advisory committee they serve a 2 year terms the plans and program committee recommends the committee messengers neither staff for the colleagues may

recommendation and it is a 6 month applications for the citizens advisory committee and in toichltd one you see information regarding our current committee members of the public members to qualify for the citizens advisory committee you have to be a san francisco resident and must appear once before the committee to speak about your qualifications we have one vacancy requiring your action as the result of mr. bryan larkin has indicated he is seeking reappointment and he's here to speak to his interest and qualification we say s have 11 applications and with that, i can take any questions. >> thank you i don't see any questions so perhaps we can allow mr. larkin to give a

statement and any other candidates mr. larkin. >> good morning, again i've served on the cac since 2003, i he was the chairperson for 4 years from 2006 to 234509z once i got to four terms i felt i tied franklin roosevelt i'm a transient engineer and worked for bart as a full-time employee and again, a year and a half to two years as a sub consultant to another contractor on call services contract a member of the passenger transport association and a member of the several of the committees and i tried to make it to the rail conference it's been 3 years

since i've been i didn't self-identify as to gender or race on the form i felt i would show up. >> thank you other captions that would like to speak. >> good morning. i'm aaron i'm on the list for district 11 as stated i wasn't listed for race or gender i've been to many meetings in district 7 and now in district 11 i'm listed white male caucasian. >> thank you, mr. goodman. >> another other candidates anyone from the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues, i wanted to chime in and say a bryan larkin has

served for 10 years on the cac his expertise i thank him for bringing me up to speed not only in the richmond district but throughout the city i want to acknowledge he's not been afraid to challenge the to on issues and bring up new ideas i think his leadership is needed as a continuing voice on the cac i know within the richmond corridor it's hesitate vanilla for the richmond as par as we call it and the reconvening of richmond lizards and the whole geary corridor i know that gary appreciates his advice and i'm hoping you'll join me in supporting brian larkin to the

cac and any other questions or comments >> can we have a roll call to reappoint bryan. >> supervisor breed. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> no, no that's fine - i was going to make the motion thank you. >> so i. >> supervisor kim's supervisor campos absent supervisor yee item passes. >> thank you congratulations and thank you for your service mr. larkin mr. clerk please call the next. >> item 5 appointment of one member to the rapid transit.

>> good morning, chair deputy city attorney nor planning the rapidly citizens advisory committee is composed of 13 members 5 appointed by the san francisco over this summer we lost the asset from outer mission due to professional and the commitment issues with this member we reopened the application process and one of the candidates are here we are going to put one member on the cac. >> i see no questions can the candidate come forward and any other candidates for a short statement. >> good day aaron goodman i represent san francisco tomorrow

in the district 11 i've been a rider on transit on the western side of the city looking at alternatives and coming up with transit problems and solutions in general being a public advocate and someone that deals with small business issues i seek the geneva seat because of my interest in the eastern side of the city there's concerns about central indication and build out in the corridor where we have issues of housing that needs to be addressed as well as small business and linkage so i'm hoping to be elected and helping the city in the concerns over are transit designs and planning as an architect i have an interest in the platforms and how stations designed and the

linkage and i not platform compared to the triangle amount i think looking several at&t's another enter model transit is critical in terms of housing so, please taking into consideration thank you, mr. goodman. >> anyone from the public wish to speak on this item seeing none. >> supervisor campos has asked for more time although the candidate is a good one we should continue this item to the call of the chair can we have a roll call. >> on item 5 supervisor breed

director ramos absent supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor yee item moved. >> thank you so it's continued to the to the call of the chair can the next item. >> item 6 recommended adaptation of the 2014 transit peripheral street 5 years prior to the station program in the amendment 2014 transit enhancements and bart station safety and capacity 5 y. >> we have our deputy director. >> i'm happy to present the last of 5 year prioritization for the prop k the transit prefer rental along with two

amendments adapted in july so as we start with the presentations in the past i'll start with highlights of projects that are completed fund out of this category and projects underway the van ness environmental about his bus rapid transit phase is complete and highlighting the market street which is a precursor was funded from the category and admission gooeven improvements underway i'm sorry the geary brt and the early design projects schwarzenegger the funding be their and the funding for the precurse for the grant bay area program that was funded by the

congestion agency block grant proposal before you for thought 5 year plan structures the can go with two primary sub categories the brt this is where you see geary and van ness primarily and the goal was to maximize the dowel to finance those to get them to completion the total prop k funds to the project will end up at $36 million with all project phases this programming that's in the 5 year programming is $15 million more than the 2009 plan but it ends up mrelts and rounding up the van ness brt to

start in 2015 the total prop k will be $44 million with 2 hundred and 63 estimated cost at this .1 of the things that bryan alluded to in his presentation it is property to be funded at two categories to maximize the funding for the transit effectiveness i'll adjust that in a moment the prop k funds for geary are proposed to come out of the brt we're working closely with the sfmta to determine early implementation elements and working on the scope and scheduling for what those projects will look like second sub category p of this category is the transit

effectiveness the primary funding for the muni implementation of the transit efficientness project the total prop k that will end up on in project is $17 million as a hundred and $43 million cost the position of $13 million has been allocated to advance the group 3 the planning and work that is not eligible should the general allocation plan for the funding there's some face holders for the competitive match and the capital phase holder project. >> can you give us a few examples of what might be in the group 3 projection. >> as far as the actual route.

>> in just a moment jonathan rivers from the sfmta is pulling something up on his computer; right? >> we'll hear from him later. >> okay. i'll continue on the next slide all of the fund in this particular category mr. be advanced over the next 5ier period so after this 5 years no funding in the category, however, it is an advanced for priorities to move this project forward in this timeframe. >> the amendment the first of the two amendments that's before you today is one to say the transit enhancement category it adds the geary bus rapid transit project are $30 million in 1718

construction funds and that was done in order to maximize the amount of money in the brt for the t r that so we've added geary to the transit enhancement category with the results to push out the customer first project that had funds programmed in the early part of the 5 year plans but those proctologist projects will be funded for the prop k program so everything is funded it is moving things around and through an amendment because of the timing of what the fund are needed it's finance cost neutral the last of the amendments the bart capacity amendment to add the balboa park construction project are $2 million in prop k funds for $15 million this project has experienced

cost increases due to the lergs to minimize the service to access maintenance facilities there was about 9 hundred thousand prop k fund that should have carried forward to the 2014 update and didn't this reck he files back it has experiences a cost increase so it will be covered by this prop k programming that's proposed this is also a san francisco priority with the transportation fund presented in 2009. with that, i can bring up jonathan rivers to answer our questions about the project >> thank you. >> hi jonathan rivers with the mta what are some of the projects in the t e p those include promotions on the m line the 2819 avenue they'll be

repaving with a complicated corridor project with the central subway happening the 22 philip e fillmore is an and we'll complicated project in group 3 those are on complicated kroshdz those are the heavy heavy capital projects in the $50 million range. >> thank you thanks so if there's no questions colleagues what we go to public comment? there's one card anyone else want to speak please come forward >> good day i want to do make sure it was on the fight of capacity we have projects pushing forward and people behind me from the community i

think it is key that in the july 15th minutes you talk about the bart specifically and reach the design platforms like the ones in mexico with respect to the wheelchair loading this has to do with the access on buses we're trying to have buses that have municipality boarding we von have been one foundation with a crack do you keep building or repair the crack first, the buses don't meet the capacity if you go on one transit line with the brt proposed you whether on dpaer or geneva the concern is the buses only have so moved so much room between the doors and platform

it's hard to board many of the designs over sea whether in europe or other criticize around the world there be looking at mid boarding with a door widower span allows people the wheelchair people that's an important key that's what we need to have a the housing development in the city. >> thank you, mr. goodman any public comment on that item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i wonder if there rivers can respond to the mid boarding suggestion from mr. goodman or how the brt platforms are going to be completed. >> sure thoinl jonathan rivers with the mta we have one on van

ness and second one on geary one of the things the mta considered when implementing this it's our preemptor services is the flexibility of the vehicle not only the capital improvements but whether or not we can guarantee services we have a new and clean bus a bus to be maintained and use on any line throughout the city the issue with the van ness and brt we didn't replace our trolley cars that led to us running 23-year-old buses we've taken brt times square and we take seriously we want to make sure we have buses to meet our on time performances and have a priority with that so he want